Jeffrey Miller

More proof that any Catholic magazine that uses America or U.S. in the title sucks. From U.S. Catholic comes this travesty.

Are cohabiting Catholics always “living in sin”? Two respected family ministry researchers argue “no” and suggest the recovery of an ancient ritual for those moving toward marriage.

…Recent focus groups of young Catholic adults on “problematic aspects of church teaching” found that they disagreed with church teaching on premarital sex and cohabitation and do not see a fundamental difference in a loving relationship before and after a wedding. Our experience with young adults leads us to doubt the claim that they are living in sin. It would appear closer to the truth that they are growing, perhaps slowly but nonetheless surely, into grace.

Woooh Nelly! Wow do I have my ecclesiology wrong. Foolish me I thought development of doctrine had something to do with the authentic teaching Magisterium. Scouring Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine I totally missed the part about focus groups. I don’t recall reading about focus groups in Dave Armstrong’s excellent A Biblical Defense of Catholicism that included a section on true doctrinal development. What is the Latin words for focus group? Maybe that would help me to track it down.

Now they are right that cohabitation involves grace. “…but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” (Rom 5:20) God is always throwing us a lifeline (and thankfully He continuously does so for us poor sinners), but this is not growing in grace. When Catholic magazines equate objectively grave sin with growing in grace what we have here is pure evil. Though this is not a new development, but a continuing one.

The most recent and respected marriage research identifies two kinds of cohabitors: those who are not committed to marriage, whom we name “non-nuptial cohabitors,” and those already committed to marriage, perhaps even engaged, whom we name “nuptial cohabitors.”

Surely Uncle Screwatp had something to do with that last sentence if not the whole article. Both being objectively grave sin won’t help you on judgment to claim “but I was a nuptial cohabitator!”

Although only non-nuptial cohabitation is linked to an increased likelihood of divorce after marriage, the fact that many Catholics believe otherwise leaves current pastoral responses to cohabiting couples both uninformed and outdated.

Just when I had ranked the inanity scale of this article at 10 on a 1 to 10 scale they make me have to recalibrate the scale. Facts say one thing, but because the couples believe otherwise well that will changes everything! Charlie Brown believing Lucy is finally honest in holding down the football will only leave him flat on the back. Surely pastoral responses do have to change with the times to address the current situation. But they are still always pastoral responses to a sin. This article is dishonest in talking about pastoral responses when what they are saying is that fornication is not sinful and thus requires no pastoral response in the first place.

It also raises questions about church documents based on old research and the pastoral approaches they recommend. Church documents continue to lump all cohabitors together, focus narrowly on the sexual dimension of relationships, and ignore the variety and complexity of the intentions, situations, and meanings couples give to cohabitation and its morality.

Thankfully I have a gag reflex that is quite permissive so I can read such a statement without spewing. This word cohabitors is just so silly where fornication fits much betters. Now surely there are different levels of grave sin, but hey they are still grave sins regardless of future intentions. You can’t steal from a store because later you plan to buy the business.

Given the current research that demonstrates that not all cohabitors are alike, we propose the re-introduction of an ancient ritual of betrothal for nuptial cohabitors, followed by intensive marriage preparation in the Catholic pastoral tradition.

Committed for life
In his 1981 encyclical Familiaris Consortio (On the Family), Pope John Paul II taught that conjugal love “aims at a deeply personal unity, the unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility.” This describes the commitment not only of married spouses but also of nuptial cohabitors who have definitively committed to a loving relationship with one another but who have not yet celebrated their wedding.

The sound you just heard was my jaw dropping several yards or meters for those on the metric scale. The term “nuptial cohabitators” is so ridiculous on so many levels it is hard to start. Now lets pretend that they are right (though you might have to use some drugs to do so). How about a situation where one person is cohabitating and plans marriage and the person they are “living” with does not. So by their distinction it would be sinful for one, but not the other. So without knowing for certain somebody’s commitment how in the world can you raise children in this environment when a pregnancy could result in revealing the true commitment of the other? How can their be a “deeply personal unity” when you can’t be sure that the other person is not just leading you on and using you? Yet this is exactly the conscience that this type of bad theology and thinking leads to.

This type of logic also makes the martyrdom of Saint Maria Goretti worthless. She died rather than to allow Alexandro to commit a sexual sin. Yet in the circumstance described above persons involved in “nuptial cohabitators” could never know for certain whether both were “nuptial cohabitators” or just whether that was only their intention and the other was sinning.

I also find it theologically sick to twist a letter on families by Pope John Paul II to apply in these situation. He won’t be turning in the grave over this misuse, but surely turning to prayer for these misguided article writers and all who belive such conscience. Something that we should all turn to.

In the 12th century, Gratian, the master of the school of law at the Catholic University of Bologna, introduced a compromise in the debate between the Romans and the northern Europeans over what brought about marriage. That compromise, still embodied in the Code of Canon Law (canon 1061), is that mutual consent makes a marriage ratified and valid, and sexual intercourse makes it ratified and consummated and, therefore, indissoluble.

Whenever a progressive spouts Canon Law you know immediately detect the fragrance of the species Rattus rattus. They cite Canon 1061 as if mutual consent was all it takes to create a valid marriage and that it can occur without the Church being involved. No mention of course is made of subsequent Canons that address preconditions to marriage and the norms and form they must follow. The type of logic they use would mean that once a couple decided to get married they were in fact already married. A marriage Mass in these supposed cases would just be a play acting of what had already occurred.

Now what about “nuptial cohabitators” who change their mind later and never in fact enter into marriage? Do they have to seek a decree of nullity before they can enter another “nuptial cohabitation?” If somebody such as myself can poke so many holes into such theological vapidness how in the world does such nonsense as this magazine make it into a Catholic magazine in the first place? But then again this magazine published by the Claretans has no problems with homosexuality, contraception, women’s ordination, etc so sadly this is not an exception.

Hat Tip: Roman Catholic by Choice.

There has been much talk recently within St. Blogs on the rumors of not only Tony Blair’s entrance into the Catholic Church, but his becoming a permanent Deacon.

Can. 1029 Only those are to be promoted to orders who, in the prudent judgment of their own bishop or of the competent major superior, all things considered, have integral faith, are moved by the right intention, have the requisite knowledge, possess a good reputation, and are endowed with integral morals and proven virtues and the other physical and psychic qualities in keeping with the order to be received.

Looking at the requirements of this Canon they don’t exactly scream Tony Blair to me. His record on homosexual acts is not exactly Catholic and just this year he said he did "a little skip" at a partnership ceremony on TV and that he is proud of his record concerning this. He has a 100 percent pro-abortion record and has helped to raise funds for Planned Parenthood and his wife Cherie has been involved with "Catholics for a Free Choice."

Now of course the history of the Catholic Church certainly contains some notable Catholics who were rather dicey at first who later became Saints and when it comes to England you can easily think of Saint Thomas Becket. Tony Blair without his repudiation of what he has done in the past and the recent past, bringing him into the Church when he was not yet in Communion with the Church would certainly cause scandal.

The issue of becoming a permanent Deacon is a another issue. For one I think it is generally a mistake to bring any convert to the Church immediately into such a role. St. Paul certainly touches on this and some diocese I believe do have a requirement of already being in the Church at least five years before any such consideration and then of course there would be a period of study for at least three years.

Mr Blair is reported as asking his confidant Father Timothy: "Would this be possible?" He was told: "It usually takes two or three years", to which he replied: "The fact that I’m PM, could this make a difference?"

The deacon idea emerged in a conversation a few years ago about Mr Blair’s plans after he leaves office.

Father Timothy suggested that taking on a formal role in the Church could give him fresh moral clout when he campaigns on climate change and Africa.

If this report is an any way accurate the idea of a former P.M. getting special treatment does not exactly bode well for the Diaconate which simply means servant.

Public statements by the Catholic Theological Society of America criticizing the Vatican and the bishops “have done us damage,” the body’s outgoing president said today, concluding that the prerequisite to fostering dialogue is “making fewer public statements defending ourselves against ecclesiastical power.”

“The price has been too high compared to what we have gained,” said Daniel Finn of St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota. “I wish we were not facing this trade-off, but I believe we are.”

Finn made clear that he was not trying to stifle criticism, but said that in the future, such statements should come from individual theologians, perhaps with others signing on, but not in the name of the CTSA.

The comments by Finn came in his “Presidential Address” at the conclusion of the annual conference of the Catholic Theological Society of America in Los Angeles, California.

Yes it public statements and being neither humble or in conformance with Church teaching that is the problem. Public statements, yeah that’s the ticket.

“Many bishops form their view of us on the basis of our public statements, often influenced by advisors who are conservative theologians who don’t attend our meetings,” Finn said.

Second, Finn argued, the public statements have exacted a steep internal cost in the CTSA by driving conservative theologians away.

“They felt no longer welcome, out of a sense that they’re on the margins of a group that pokes funs at Vatican shortcomings and puts the CTSA name on statements they do not endorse. They feel it’s not their group,” he said.

“I don’t know that we’ll ever get those folks back, but there is a long future of others to come,” Finn said.

John Allen Jr. ends by saying:

…To what extent Finn’s sentiments represent a majority in the CTSA is difficult to gauge, but his address drew a standing ovation Sunday morning. It’s also revealing that the CTSA did not put out a public statement on the Vatican’s recent critical notification on two books by Jesuit Fr. Jon Sobrino of El Salvador, a famed liberation theologian, but rather decided to organize a discussion of his theology at their next meeting.

Too bad it appears that this turn is one of public relation and not a change of heart to be with the heart of the Church.

John Allen Jr. reports on Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles last night addressing the annual convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America. In a understatement John Allen Jr. writes "The relationship between the CTSA and the bishops has not always been irenic." Well when you are talking Cardinal Mahony and CTSA they probably agree more than disagree.

Mahony also described meeting with area theologians in September 2000 at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, in response to Pope John Paul II’s 1990 apostolic letter Ex Corde Ecclesiae, on the Catholic identity of church-run schools and colleges. Among other things, the pope’s letter requires a Catholic theologian to have a license from the local bishop, called a “mandatum.”

“We were able to arrive at procedures whereby I fulfill my responsibilities as the ordinary, in a way that respects the autonomy and integrity of Roman Catholics teaching Catholic theology in this archdiocese,” Mahony said.

I am obviously not a theologian because I just can’t understand arguments like that and I have not been educated enough for them to somehow make sense. The idea that you need autonomy from the Catholic Church to teach truth is a paradox I am unable to unravel. Gee in my ignorance I thought you could have total autonomy in seeking and teaching the truth and still be fully within the Catholic faith.

Though it is rather ironic that the Cardinal even talked about Ex Corde Ecclesiae in front of the CTSA since they opposed it and issued a statement of disapproval when the Bishops addressed it.

The Cardinal said he did "fulfill my responsibilities as the ordinary" and I wonder exactly when the following was done with universities in his diocese?

Article 4. The University Community

§ 1. The responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the University rests primarily with the University itself. While this responsibility is entrusted principally to university authorities (including, when the positions exist, the Chancellor and/or a Board of Trustees or equivalent body), it is shared in varying degrees by all members of the university community, and therefore calls for the recruitment of adequate university personnel, especially teachers and administrators, who are both willing and able to promote that identity. The identity of a Catholic University is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine. It is the responsibility of the competent Authority to watch over these two fundamental needs in accordance with what is indicated in Canon Law(49).

§ 2. All teachers and all administrators, at the time of their appointment, are to be informed about the Catholic identity of the Institution and its implications, and about their responsibility to promote, or at least to respect, that identity.

§ 3. In ways appropriate to the different academic disciplines, all Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching. In particular, Catholic theologians, aware that they fulfil a mandate received from the Church, are to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church as the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition(50).

§ 4. Those university teachers and administrators who belong to other Churches, ecclesial communities, or religions, as well as those who profess no religious belief, and also all students, are to recognize and respect the distinctive Catholic identity of the University. In order not to endanger the Catholic identity of the University or Institute of Higher Studies, the number of non-Catholic teachers should not be allowed to constitute a majority within the Institution, which is and must remain Catholic.

§ 5. The education of students is to combine academic and professional development with formation in moral and religious principles and the social teachings of the Church; the programme of studies for each of the various professions is to include an appropriate ethical formation in that profession. Courses in Catholic doctrine are to be made available to all students(51).

I would like to be more charitable than cynical, but the facts point to his idea of responsibility as doing exactly nothing in regards to holding Catholic universities to this standard. Somehow pastoral has come to mean doing nothing. I think I will kick back on my couch and be pastoral.

I guess if the Cardinal is right James J. Walter, chairman of the Bioethics Institute at Loyola Marymount University didn’t support physician assisted suicide and also didn’t have pro-abortion speakers at commencement addresses, and is not listed by homosexual sites as being "gay friendly." Somehow I don’t think the faithfulness to the magisterium of Thomas Aquinas College has anything to do with the archdiocese, and is more likely despite the archdiocese.

Though it is unfair to single out the Cardinal in regards to Ex Corde Ecclesiae. For several years the squeaking sound we heard across the country was the foot-draging of the USSCB in even addressing implementation and mainly they have just gone all "pastoral" on us.

From Domenico Bettinelli:

If anyone was still under the misapprehension that Dignity, the homosexual-activist Catholic group, was in fact Catholic, the fact that they have a pretend-ordained woman set to preside over their Gay Pride “Mass” should dispel that notion.

Dignity/NY, the LGBT Catholic group, will have a woman preside over its Gay Pride Mass for the first time on June 23 at 7:30 p.m. at the Judson Memorial Church on Washington Square South. She is the Reverend Victoria Rue, a Roman Catholic womanpriest who was ordained by three Roman Catholic womenbishops in 2005.

Here’s hoping that the “menbishops” of the Church in the US once and for all order all of their diocesan ministries to homosexuals to sever all ties with Dignity, because it is a heretical group.

Well there is a bright side. With a women "priest" they won’t be taking Communion sacrilegiously, in fact they won’t be receiving Communion at all.

It is almost a rule that if a group uses dignity in their title that their positions are at odds with Church teaching. Euthanasia groups are also prone to use the term in titles for their groups.

Dignity USA on their FAQ says conscience like:

Neither Scripture nor Tradition nor natural law theory nor human science nor personal experience convincingly supports official Catholic teaching about the immorality of homogenital acts. Accordingly, and after much soul-searching, many gay and lesbian Catholics have formed consciences that differ from official Church teaching and have entered into homosexual relationships. In this respect they are exactly like the many married Catholic couples who cannot accept the official teaching on contraception.

Of course they like to quote from Church documents that rightly teach about how those with same-sex attraction are to be treated. So if a Catholic went against Church teaching and decided his conscience allowed him to treat homosexuals as an "object of violent malice in speech or in action" I doubt they would consider this a valid following of conscience that "differ from official Church teaching." The following of a conscience formed outside of the Church if it proves anything, proves too much.

Maybe one day good and faithful groups such as Courage will get as much support as Dignity does by prominent diocese.